The claim by Baker's source "What's curious about this expansion is that space, and the vacuum associated with it, must somehow be created in this process...What's more, there is an energy associated with any given volume of the universe. If that volume increases, the inescapable conclusion is that this energy must increase as well. And yet physicists generally think that energy creation is forbidden..." is garbage. In Einstein GR(with Lambda) no energy is ever created or destroyed, it is locally conserved everywhere. There either is no such thing as a total energy of the universe or if is one then it is conserved. No paradox, Einstein theory said so already in 1915 or so. Re the idea mentioned by Meeker that we can resolve the huge discrepancy between the cosmical constant Lambda and the Planck energy density by using "holographic surface principle" somehow... it sounds dubious too. Imagine the universe is finite. As it expands, its total energy stays fixed even though its volume and "surface" expand. This contradicts this "resolution." If we ask not about its total energy but merely about its "cosmical constant" component of the energy, then that scales like the volume, not surface. Hmm. Fortunately in de Sitter nonEuclidean geometry volume and surface can scale essentially the same, at least if you interpret right... so still surviving... this resolution might lead to quantum field theory yielding nonconstant "mass of electron" & suchlike which depend logarithmically on size of universe... which might be compatible with observation... so perhaps there is some hope for this crazy suggested resolution. What are you going to do if the universe is spatially infinite?